Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 424 of 968 (600204)
01-13-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by barbara
01-13-2011 11:25 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
The Theory of Evolution would not be a hot debate if they had just left it as "change' over time. The problem comes in when they state they have the evidence that backs up the details of their theory.
I don't understand. How does presenting evidence for a claim make the claim weaker?
Genetics at this point can only say that we share many protein sequences with many different species in the genes that are involved in development of body plans and its system of regulation mechanisms.
A study of endogenous retroviruses shows that we share a common ancestor with other primates:
Just a moment...
That same study also demonstrates that endogenous retroviral insertions have accumulated mutations in the exact pattern we would expect to see if evolution is true. We see the fingerprint of common ancestry and evolution in our genome and the genomes of other primates.
They can sequence your genes but it cannot tell them what you are going to look like so by stating this is evidence that connects each species in a tree model is not conclusive.
It is as conclusive as any DNA paternity test. We don't need to know every single function of every single gene in order to establish relatedness. Would I require you to tell me the function of every base in your genome before I accept the fact that you share a common ancestor with your siblings?
There are many contributing factors that are believed to be involved with morphology changes in life forms over time. There is no such thing as A+B=C to define life's processes. This makes it impossible for science to solve the mysteries of life.
Please forgive me if I think scientists should still try to solve these mysteries anyway. Afterall, that is what science is all about, solving the mysteries of how nature works. Two thousand years ago the mystery of how matter is put together and where it came from was a complete mystery. Now we have built a huge ring in Switzerland that is going to produce (hopefully) quark plasma which resembles the form of matter seen just nanoseconds after the Big Bang.
We can only observe the results not the actual process of how it got there. This is why we have many theories that attempt to explain these actual processes. The theories are validated as long as the results remain predictable. The conflict arises and the debate continues in defining the process based on opinions.
It's not based on opinions. It is based on the experimental results and the evidence.
Also, why is it invalid to use evidence to reconstruct the past? It is done all of the time in murder trials. Have you ever watched CSI?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by barbara, posted 01-13-2011 11:25 AM barbara has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 429 of 968 (600259)
01-13-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by shadow71
01-13-2011 4:08 PM


Seem like he is pretty definite in his opinions, any thoughts by our Evolution experts?
The Modern Synthesis has always been a very big tent. The core concepts of mutation, selection, and divergence are still there and quite healthy. Since the 1950's new forms of mutation (e.g. HGT) have been discovered and the strength of natural selection is now considered to be quite variable across the genome. However, we are still talking about mutation and selection, the foundation of the Modern Synthesis. The author does make one big mistake, IMHO:
"Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection"
Nowhere in the Modern Synthesis does it require genomes to be optimally designed. All that evolution requires is good enough, which genomes are. Also, the author wants to separate the DNA sequence from the context of the species and it's environment. Evolution deals with the evolution of a population, not a genome (although the two are necessarily tied together). The genomic origin of important adaptations needed for the survival of a species were most certainly selected for and not reached through genetic drift.
Sometimes experts can not see the forest for the trees. There is also the mindset of being sensational in order to make a rather mundane point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by shadow71, posted 01-13-2011 4:08 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by shadow71, posted 01-13-2011 4:25 PM Taq has replied
 Message 432 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 5:00 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 433 of 968 (600265)
01-13-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by shadow71
01-13-2011 4:25 PM


Are you farmilar with him or his reputation?
Konnin in particular? No. Am I familiar with pedantic scientists with an overinflated view of their own arguments? Yes.
I lean more towards Ernst Mayr's view of the modern Modern Synthesis. Afterall, he has been around for 80 years of it.
quote:
By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigmnor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair.
It would seem justified to assert that, so far, no revision of the Darwinian paradigm has become necessary as a consequence of the spectacular discoveries of molecular biology. But there is something else that has indeed affected our understanding of the living world: that is its immense diversity. Most of the enormous variation of kinds of organisms has so far been totally ignored by the students of speciation. We have studied the origin of new species in birds, mammals, and certain genera of fishes, lepidopterans, and molluscs, and speciation has been observed to be allopatric (geographical) in most of the studied groups. Admittedly, there have been a few exceptions, particularly in certain families, but no exceptions have been found in birds and mammals where we find good biological species, and speciation in these groups is always allopatric. However, numerous other modes of speciation have also been discovered that are unorthodox in that they differ from allopatric speciation in various ways. Among these other modes are sympatric speciation, speciation by hybridization, by polyploidy and other chromosome rearrangements, by lateral gene transfer, and by symbiogenesis. Some of these nonallopatric modes are quite frequent in certain genera of cold-blooded vertebrates, but they may be only the tip of the iceberg. There are all the other phyla of multicellular eukaryotes, the speciation of most of them still quite unexplored. This is even truer for the 70-plus phyla of unicellular protists and for the prokaryotes. There are whole new worlds to be discovered with, perhaps, new modes of speciation among the forthcoming discoveries."
Just a moment...
Mayr views it as a revision, not an overturning of the Modern Synthesis. I tend to agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by shadow71, posted 01-13-2011 4:25 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 434 of 968 (600270)
01-13-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Panda
01-13-2011 5:00 PM


Something seems wrong with that table, but my biology knowledge is insufficient to be certain.
It is just a feeling, so I could easily be wrong.
Konnin slips between Darwinian and neo-Darwinian (i.e. the Modern Synthesis) evolution quite freely. He more or less conflates the two, even though there are striking differences. For instance, Darwin did hitch his wagon to gradualism. He did hedge his bet stating that evolution could have different tempos, but he did side with gradualism. neo-Darwinism fully accepted Punctuated Equilibria which is non-gradualistic. However, both gradualism and punk eek work through mutation, selection, and speciation with each putting more stress on one mechanism over another (e.g. punk eek stresses speciation as the major mechanism for biodiversity while gradualism stresses selection). IOW, they have the same ingredients just in different amounts.
The author also moves between adaptation and genomic evolution. They are not the same thing. Yes, neutral drift is the dominant factor in the base changes in the genome. However, neutral drift is not the dominant factor in positive adaptations to environmental challenges. This is really a problem of context, not a failure of the Modern Synthesis. The question that Darwin was trying to answer was how the gross morphology and physiology of macroorganisms changed over time to fit their environment. Positive selection is the driving force for this type of adaptation, not neutral drift. Darwin was right, and is still right, within this context.
I feel a bit guilty accusing Konnin of being pedantic while pedantically criticizing his points. However, I do not feel guilty in saying his claims are way overblown. If neo-Darwinism was a humorist it might claim that rumors of it's death were greatly exaggerated.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 5:00 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 6:52 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 453 of 968 (600402)
01-14-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by shadow71
01-13-2011 7:21 PM


To me the interesting part is that the experts in the field are now questioning the apparatus for this phenomen.
Of course they do. All scientists question the theories that they use. That's the whole point of science, to test our models of how nature works.
I read the paper as saying the author does not agree with a tree of life, but rather a forest of life, ie. we can't tell after these last 50 years of new discovery , what is actually going on.
For microbial life where horizontal genetic transfer is common there is not a branching tree, but more of a knot of life. That is what the author is arguing for. He is not arguing for a forest of life which connotates separate origins for different lineages. Where it concerns macroscopic organisms like you and me, the tree of life is still quite solid.
I find it very interesting that the theories are so much more complicated or complex than has been expounded by the evolutionist such as Jerry Coyne, Dawkins et al. Who arrogantly state Evolution is a fact. Perhaps there is more to evolution than what these guys are stating.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Perhaps Stephen Jay Gould can help to clear this up:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
There may be more to this theory than we realize.
I am sure that the scientists studying evolution feel the same way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by shadow71, posted 01-13-2011 7:21 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 11:53 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 454 of 968 (600403)
01-14-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Dawn Bertot
01-14-2011 2:46 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
But I did answer your question with a question.
Which means you never answered my question.
Why don't we see wooly mammoths and elephants living side by side in the present day?
Im not saying directly your hommonids didnt exist, I am simply saying the evidence should be a bit more obvious if we are talking about centuries of living and dying by these creatures
Why should it be more obvious? Please explain. Like I stated earlier, there were billions of passenger pigeons in North America and yet we only have a handful of passenger pigeon fossils. Why do you think that is?
secondly, are you saying this is an example of a frozen Hommonid or a frozen humanoid, in the picture?
Both. Modern humans are both humanoid and hominids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-14-2011 2:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 455 of 968 (600404)
01-14-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Dawn Bertot
01-14-2011 3:05 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Again it is a common mistake to assume that everyone that rejects evolution does it on religious grounds.
Surely such a statement should be followed by examples of biologists who reject evolution based on non-religious reasons. So who are they?
A well set out, sound argument, the likes of which would say that creation/ism is a self-contradiction. this argument would of course need to pit itself against physical realites
You did not answer my question, again. What evidence, if found, would affect creationism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-14-2011 3:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 3:19 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 492 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 3:23 AM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 468 of 968 (600436)
01-14-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by shadow71
01-14-2011 12:45 PM


You read his paper as not challenging the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory?
To use a turn of phrase . . . Konnin was saying that the Emporer has clothes on, but they aren't the color we thought they were.
While Konnin certainly used sensational language the actual meat of his argument is quite tame. Konnin still agrees that evolution occurs through mutation and selection, the very foundation of the Modern Synthesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 12:45 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 469 of 968 (600439)
01-14-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by shadow71
01-14-2011 11:53 AM


I believe what Koonin and many micolecular, micro, and genetic biologists are now finding is that the mode of the fact of evolution may be different than what the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory state.
We have certainly found new facts in the 150 years since Origin of Species was written, and many facts since the Modern Synthesis came to fruition in the 1930-40's. However, none of these facts have required a complete rewrite of the Modern Synthesis. They have been brought into the Modern Synthesis with no real problems.
That perhaps natural selection and random mutation are not as important as now stated.
Like I have stated before, it depends on the context. Positive selection is extremely important for explaining how beneficial traits spread through a population. Purifying selection is extremely important for explaining how the majority of bases change over time in a genome. The mistake that Konnin has made, IMO, is to pull these mechanisms out of their context in order to downplay their importance.
Also, mutation is still as important as ever. Even in cases of horizontal gene transfer the gene had to arise through mutations at some point prior to the transfer event. Also, genes that undergo transfer still mutate and do take on new roles through the process of mutation and selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 11:53 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 475 of 968 (600478)
01-14-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by shadow71
01-14-2011 3:51 PM


In the Box, page 5 he does express quite of bit of doubt about the importance of natural selection. He says important, but not dominant.
The importance of natural selection in explaining what, specifically? That is the important question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 3:51 PM shadow71 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 479 of 968 (600486)
01-14-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by shadow71
01-14-2011 5:06 PM


Eugene Koonin writes:
"...a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by "primitive' life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology."
Nothing that we have found in these less complex lifeforms has required a rewrite of the modern synthesis. What we have discovered is new types of inheritance (e.g. HGT) that have become part of the Modern Synthesis. I don't think anyone would claim that the Modern Synthesis was complete in the 1940's. It has always been a work in progress, as is every theory in science.
"Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection."
You keep ignoring the sleight of hand. Koonin shows you adaptive evolution and then replaces it with genomic evolution when you aren't looking. The two concepts are not synonyms. They are different concepts.
ABE:
Whether he is right or wrong he is clearly saying that the Modern Synthesis is not holding up.
He is wrong that the Modern Synthesis was written in stone in the 1960's and that no one is allowed to add anything to it. The health of the Modern Synthesis is exemplified in it's ability to absorb new knowledge which it is doing and continues to do.
Besides, I don't see how Koonin helps the creationist argument. What Koonin is arguing for is a new theory of evolution.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 5:06 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 7:28 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 519 of 968 (601033)
01-18-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by shadow71
01-14-2011 7:28 PM


First of all, when I posted Koonin's paper, I did not mention the creationist argument.
I have mentioned it. I don't see how Koonin's argument helps the creationist argument. Do you?
Koonin is stating that evolution as stated in the neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not corrobated by the findings of molecular, micro, and gentic biological findings since the 1960's.
This is why we do not use the neo-Darwinian Synthesis from the 1960's. We use the modern verison which incorporates everything that Koonin is talking about.
I think he is arguing for a more developed theory based on the research since the 1960's.
That theory already exists. It is called the Modern Synthesis of the year 2011.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 7:28 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 4:08 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 520 of 968 (601037)
01-18-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2011 11:47 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
perhaps we are just looking at a type of primate, not necessarily in some chain headed twords man
You have things backwards again. First of all, we are looking at types of primates. Humans are primates, as was our common ancestor with chimps, and as were the proposed transitional species between us and that common ancestor. So of course we are looking at types of primates.
What you are ignoring is that the predictions made by the theory of evolution preceded the discovery of these fossils. You keep ignoring how science works, and this relates back to the OP of this thread. The theory of evolution predicts that we should find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THESE FOSSILS EXHIBIT. As we move through time the primitive features go away and modern features appear, JUST AS THE THEORY PREDICTS WE SHOULD SEE. Therefore, these fossils are evidence in support of the theory.
At the same time, the theory predicts that we should NOT SEE fossils that violate the nested hierarchy. We should not see fossils with a mixture of primitive ape features and derived canine features, as an example.
Let's ask a simpler question. According to you, if these fossils are not evidence then what characteristics does a fossil need in order to evidence the transition between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps? If these fossils are not evidence, then what would the real evidence look like? If you can't answer these questions then you have no argument.
Also, the theory of evolution does not predict the rate of fossilization. This is dealt with in geology, not biology. All the theory of evolution can do is use the fossils we do have to test the theory, and everytime we do this the theory passes.
Of course enough evidence would support that, but i believe evidence of that nature is lacking and keeps people doubtful of its conclusions
What is it about the hominid transitional fossils that you find lacking? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 11:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 525 of 968 (601094)
01-18-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by shadow71
01-18-2011 4:08 PM


I think it helps some creationists because of the complexity involved. One can construe this as planned.
Where did Koonin argue this?
I posted James A. Sapiro's abstract in re "natural genetic engineerilng" that goes beyond the 20th century theory in regards to randoness and natural selection.
Mobile DNA elements do insert randomly with respect to fitness. These mobile elements can and do result in deleterious phenotypes, as well as beneficial and neutral phenotypes. It's not as if a bear started experiencing colder winters and in response the entire species specifically mutated a single base that resulted in white fur across the entire species. That's not how it works. Environmental stresses can and do result in DNA mutations, genome restructuring, and the rest. However, these changes are still random with respect to fitness.
What neo-Darwinism states is that mutation and selection are independent of one another. That is, mutations are blind to what is good or bad for the individual. This is exactly what we see with mobile DNA elements. They insert all over the place, and the helpful ones are kept through natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 4:08 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by shadow71, posted 01-19-2011 5:22 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 526 of 968 (601095)
01-18-2011 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by shadow71
01-18-2011 4:14 PM


Re: The fact of evolution.
The problem I have with saying evolution is a fact is that it assumes the process and the cause of the process are fact. I agree the evolution is a fact, but the cause and the manner of the process is still not fully determined.
The problem lies with the layman understanding of how science works. To the scientist the difference between the fact and theory of evolution is quite clear. Organisms change over time and share a common ancestor. Fact. This change is explained through mutation, selection, and speciation. Theory.
A theory is always a tentative explanation of the facts, to put it succinctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 4:14 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024